Does Religious Discrimination Really Exist in Today’s America?

GB541-Unit 6 interrogation Paper Does spectral diversity actu whollyy hold let out in Todays the States? Kaplan University Profession Steven Cates Introduction at that place is so much controversy when questioning diametrical apparitional whims. Ein truthone has a opposite belief system, and who is to say which is right or wrong. judge these differences and bending judgment against those with contrasting beliefs is the end closure we atomic human body 18 looking to achieve as the Statesns. Unfortunately at that place ar a lot of opinions on what phantasmal beliefs atomic number 18 acceptable and what spectral beliefs atomic number 18 unacceptable.The last-ditch goal is for e veryone to accept that their apparitional beliefs be non right for everybody. unlikeness is a bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or dirty preaching regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. spectral distinction involves treating a person (an item-by-item or employee) negatively because of that persons spiritual views. The civil Rights Act of 1866 regulates the meets of on the whole individuals or entities when accounting entry into a contract to employ mortal else. Title VI of this act prohibits disparity ground on race, color, theology, gender, or case origin.Does Religious inconsistency Really Exist in Todays America? Yes, unearthly dissimilarity still does exist today in America. The United States of America has al authoritys been proud of the fact that we argon a free country. Free to physical exercise whatever apparitional beliefs or non example any spiritual beliefs that we want. This emancipation has not only concedeed citizens to openly practice their beliefs, it allows them to do so without judgment from others. ane example we usher out look at is a major tragedy in America such as the terrorist ack-ack of 9/11. After this horrific tragedy, there was an adverse reaction to Muslims.Ameri groundworks who w ere of the same inception were treated unalikely because of the aftershock of that days events. In this case, the primary reason for the below the belt treatment was mainly ascribable to dread and escape of knowledge nigh the close and Muslim religion. There argon tidy sum who commit ghostlike beliefs, and there be those who do not believe in religion. Approximately 78% of Americans are affiliate with Christianity as their religion. Christianity is the most popular of all religions listed in the article, Religious Diversity and favoritism in the United States.About 16% of Americans are uncertain as to what if any phantasmal affiliation they belong to. Religion is very controversial to begin with in different countries, let alone bringing them all together in the same state, city, or neighborhood Personal opinions can play to some form of religious disagreement. The number of religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC has to a greater extent than manifold from 1992 to 2007. Between the years of 1997 and 2000, religious based charges filed with the EEOC represents only about three part of all filings.Between the years of 2001 and 2005 that portionage of charges filed change magnitude to four percent, and increased to five percent between the years of 2006 to 2009. Although it is important for the employer to entertain their employees religious beliefs, a companionship cannot subject other employees to dangerous conditions. If the amount of array worn in a manufacturing environment could get caught in machinery, it would be detrimental to the sight to allow their employee to put one across clothing that is unsafe.It is the employers account dexterity to provide a safe shit environment for all employees, which should be their first-class honours degree priority thence they can harbor their employees religious beliefs. Ultimately a order is not essential to restrain religious beliefs if it willing cause overweening i ll fortune on the business. An example of an employee fix code that would cause unreasonable rigorousness on the employer would be the case of McCarter v. Harris County a young-bearing(prenominal) employee was hired and informed of the sic code of navy blue underdrawers and andton down shirt.After the young-bearing(prenominal) employee born-again to the Pentecostal church, she approached her employer about her inability to break in mens clothing due to her new faith and her supervisory program hold to hold in her request to wear a tapered skirt instead. The supervisor then assigned tasks like climbing a ladder to other employees who were cut shorted more suitably for the task. As epoch went on the supervisor retired and a new supervisor was not as accommodating to the young-bearing(prenominal) employees religious beliefs, so the womanly employee was instructed to retrograde to the consumed dress code, and that they would no longer reassign tasks due to her bone u p.The female employee did not return to the pant dress code and later tripped and fell from the ladder. The supervisor gave the female a written menu that she was to return to the pant dress code, or she could contact Human Resources to see about a transfer to a different position that did not require the pant dress code. The female employee did not return to work due to her inability to intromit the dress code requirements that conflicted with her faith and her lack of experience for other positions offered at the time of the incident the female was terminated for refusing to develop back to work.In this case the employer produced sufficient evidence that they did retrace reasonable accommodations to support the employees religious requirements, nevertheless the employees attire was causing unjustified hardship on the company. The administration found in party estimation of the employer, stating that the employer made every attempt to declare the employee, but their dres s code would in fact cause undue hardship on the company and other employees who had to soak up the responsibilities that the female could not set up due to her apparel.Had the employer acted differently in this scenario, the employee could convey won the lawsuit. For warrant if the employer had not addicted the employee an opportunity to apply for different positions at heart the company, or not made attempts to make up the employees religious beliefs and made unprocessed comments to the employee about her religion causing a stressful work environment for her could have caused the accosts to reign over in favor of the employee.In this scenario, the employer made attempts to go the employees beliefs, but her attire not only put a heavier work load on her co-workers, it withal caused her to have an separatrix within the workplace. This is considered an undue hardship on the employer by accommodating their employees religious beliefs. Abercrombie & fitch has had a few ex periences with discrimination claims. One cleaning woman claimed that she was discriminated against because she could not wear her hijab, and Abercrombie stated it was against their look policy because the woman would not be wearing clothing consistent with their brands.Abercrombie and Fitch was sued in 2004 by the EEOC for allegedly violating Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, because their hiring and recruiting practices excluded minorities and women by assuming a restrictive marketing image, and other policies that express mail minority and female employment. An employer like Abercrombie and Fitch are required to accommodate religious practices unless it causes undue hardship on the employer. In the article Religious Diversity and dissimilitude in the United States, they list 20 different categories of religious affiliations within a survey.There were 4,151 religious discrimination flushs filed in 2011. If an individual experiences religious discrimination in the wor kplace, they are advised to file a clod complaint to the EEOC, they will then be advised to consult an attorney to check over the legal steps to take for allowance from their aggressor. If the courts run across the company abominable of religious discrimination they will require nonindulgent action to be taken to check off that this does not happen again and the company will be ordered to have restitution to the employees involved in the lawsuit.The website www. franczek. com discussed a couple cases pertaining to religious discrimination against police officers. Should an officer be required to cut his hair if it is against his religion? In this particular case the question is not if the officer should cut his hair or not, but was the officer treated unfair by his employer? In this case, the police plane section is in the wrong for making derogatory comments about the officer, and they forced the officer to infix in a psychiatric evaluation.In the s case, the officer fe lt that the surgical incisions personal grooming policy was against his religious beliefs and the department granted him temporary leave to follow his religious beliefs of keeping a trimmed beard and to wear a yarmulka when inside. The officer did agree to fling off his beard, but continued to wear his yarmulke indoors. The officer filed a motion against the department and was partially found in his favor since the city grants approval to medical reasons for facial nerve nerve hair.If the department will accept facial hair for medical reasons, they must also make the same accommodations for religious reasons. An employee cannot be fired just for requesting that their employer accommodate their religious beliefs. In North Carolina a female front desk clerk was fired for postulation if the hotel would switch her docket to accommodate her observation of Sabbath. The front desk clerks religion was Seventh Day Adventist, and her schedule conflicted with her ability to observe Sabb ath, which was observed from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.The EEOC found that the hotel was in violation of Title VII. In this instance the employee could have been granted an alternative schedule to accommodate her religious beliefs unless the accommodations cause undue hardship on the hotel. The courts did not find that any undue hardships would have been strung-out the hotels actions therefore the hotel would be required to narrow down with the employee for wrongful termination under the chiliad of religious discrimination. If an employee is terminated due to their eligious beliefs they can file a formal complaint with the EEOC, and seek legal counsel to discuss the steps necessary to gain fee for the damages caused by this discrimination. If the employer did not make attempts to accommodate the individuals religious beliefs in the workplace they are guilty of religious discrimination. If the individual is subjected to a opponent work environment due to derogate towards their religion, jokes about religious beliefs, or rude comments about an individual because of their faith the company is guilty of religious discrimination. An employer cannot claim what is and is not a valid faith.There is no presumption on when an employee adopts their religious beliefs, they could have worked for a company for fifteen years and modify from Christianity to Buddhism, and there is nothing that their employer can do about it. The employer also cannot determine what allow religious practices are acceptable and what practices are unacceptable. An employer has to prove that they have made attempts to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace but the accommodations caused undue hardships to the company in order for the employer to take actions towards an employee who is claiming religious discrimination.These undue hardships would have to prove that the employer had made attempts to accommodate the employee, but the company was suffering and could not exercise the steps taken to support their employees faith. Sometime these undue hardships could be gumshoe hazards, which could put the employee or other employees in danger of injury. Unsafe works conditions would be grounds for the employer to claim undue hardship, and then the company would not convey to accommodate the employees faith practices.There are a few courses of action that can be taken to limit religious discrimination. One of the weaker courses of action is exercising security deposit of other peoples religious beliefs and allowing them to express their beliefs without forcing the beliefs of any individuals religious faith. This course of action is not always acceptable in more situations. Another course of action is to instigate Americans that we accept all people, no enumerate what religion they practice. We need to express a no tolerance policy for discrimination for everyone.Habitual offenders of religious discrimination will require more stringent penalties than most. This course of action would have to be get byd in court and possibly with fines and action plans mandated by the court system. These courses of action are necessary to pee a boundary that is set to particularize right and wrong ways to handle religious beliefs and discrimination. Avoiding religious discrimination acquittance forward will be complicated for all parties. The best way to keep down religious discrimination is to educate.Educating citizens about the importance of religious freedoms and differences in cultures is necessary to avoid discrimination going forward. I intemperately believe that educating people is the best way to handle eliminating religious discrimination. People track down to resist what they do not understand, which tends to perplex discrimination. This is why I feel that schooling of what we do not understand is important, so that we can rise above discrimination. finishing Religious discrimination is still very much a problem in t he United States. America is known for freedom of religion, and many other freedoms.With these freedoms, there tends to be controversy within the different religious groups. The ability to accept each religious affiliation is next to impossible, but with teaching it will become less everyday than it has been. Educating Americans of the importance of religion in different cultures and why they came to the United States. There will be tragic events such as the 9/11 attacks, the Oklahoma city Bombing, Hurricane Katrina, Tsunamis, and more these events will bring out religious beliefs for those who are affected instanter with these tragedies.We can choose to accept the differences or we can pass judgment I choose to accept the differences. References Bennett-Alexander, D Hartman, L (2009) Employment Law for Business sixth edition Fuller, Jon George (2012) Religious Diversity and Discrimination in the United States, retrieved September 2012, www. equaljusticeandlaw. wordpress. com G inn, Janel (2007) Do Religious Groups in America sleep together Discrimination? , New Religion and church property Books for Youth, Pp 68 Booklist Marcum, T. Perry, S. 2010) Dressed for Success derriere a Claim if Religious Discrimination be Successful, Labor Law journal Pp 184 Unknown Author, (2012) Discrimination, retrieved September 18, 2012, www. businessdictionary. com Unknown Author, (2012) Religious Discrimination, retrieved September 17, 2012 www. eeoc. gov Unknown Author, (2012) Religious Discrimination at work, retrieved September 25, 2012, www. employment. findlaw. com Unknown Author, (2008) two Federal District Courts Decide Religious Discrimination Cases Involving Police Officers, retrieved September 25, 2012, www. franczek. com